Pages

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Practicing “gotcha” journalism and ignoring the Constitution

A viral news item recently is the controversy over the mandate
by the Department of Health and Human Services requiring insurance plans
operated by Catholic-affiliated institutions, such as universities and hospitals,
to offer contraception, sterilization and abortafacients, services which are
opposed by the moral foundations of the church. And that is the genesis of a
comment that sent people into a tizzy.

Foster Friess is a supporter of Republican presidential nomination
seeker Rick Santorum. He’s a political activist and Christian conservative. In
an interview on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell Mr. Friess made a comment about the
contraception issue that left Ms. Mitchell stunned. Alluding to the costs of
providing contraception, he concluded, “You know back in my days, they used
Bayer aspirin for contraception. The gals put it between their knees and
it wasn’t that costly.”

That comment has been roundly criticized as a tasteless
condemnation of contraceptive protection for women, for which certain hyper-sensitive
folks believe he should be hanged, or at least water boarded.

Two sub-stories arise from this event: First is the gotcha
journalism so on display in the current political campaign, evidenced in the
attempt to hold Mr. Santorum responsible for the behavior of people who support
his candidacy.

Charlie Rose on CBS TV asked Sen. Santorum what he had said
to Foster Friess about the offending comment. Implicit in his questions were: Did
you, Mr. Santorum, rebuke Mr. Friess enough to satisfy the PC police? Is Mr.
Friess contrite? Are you, Mr. Santorum, also suitably contrite, and prepared to
take your 20 lashes?

All of this foolishness arises from the supposition by Charlie
Rose that candidates are somehow responsible for what all/any of their
supporters say at every moment, on any subject, under all circumstances,
whether or not they were speaking on the candidate’s behalf.

You may remember that same critical standard was not in
effect during the 2008 campaign when the racist and incendiary statements about
America by Barack Obama’s preacher, Jeremiah Wright, came to light. Mr. Obama
said that even though he had been in preacher Wright’s church for 20 years, he
hadn’t heard any of those vile comments. The media did not question that
explanation.

And there was the domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, who was suspected
of being Mr. Obama’s friend, or at least a friendly neighbor who held campaign
events in his home. But the alleged friendship with Bill Ayers was “tenuous.” It
must be true; [begin ital] The Washington
Post [end ital] said so.

Since Mr. Obama was not challenged by the media like Mr.
Santorum was, about either Mr. Wright or his relationship with Weatherman Ayers,
the media apparently believes that anti-American speech and bombing police
stations aren’t as serious as opposing free contraceptives for women.

Mr. Santorum pointed out the “gotcha” aspect of the
question, and then the discussion turned to the candidate’s position on recreational
sex and promiscuity, which really is the essence of the contraception issue.
And later on MSNBC Mr. Friess said that his comment was a joke. “Back in my
days, they didn’t have the birth control pill, so to suggest that Bayer aspirin
could be a birth control pill was considered pretty ridiculous and quite
funny. … [And] it gives an opportunity to really look at what this
contraceptive issue is all about.”

In Mr. Friess’ youthful days, recreational sex was pretty
rare, certainly far less common than today. Why? Because the morality of the
day placed a stigma on girls who “slept around” and an even greater no-no was a
single girl who got pregnant, or a boy who didn’t do the right thing if he got
a girl pregnant. However, in the decades since, our culture has stopped
teaching and stressing morality, bowing to the “I’m free to do as I please”
attitude leftover from the hippie sub-culture that emerged in the mid-60s. The resulting
social pathologies of out-of-wedlock births, single-parent families, sexually
transmitted diseases and abortions are just the price we have to pay so that
people may be comfortably free from societal restrictions and the responsibilities
that once accompanied personal behavior.

The HHS mandate is in line with the desires of free-love 60s
hippies, but worse than enabling promiscuity and the misery it causes, the
mandate violates the U.S. Constitution’s protection of religion by requiring religious
employers to provide insurance plans that include coverage for things which run
directly counter to the moral precepts of those employers.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says plainly, “Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof …” It does not say, “Except where contraceptives,
sterilization or abortion are concerned.” Even big-government liberals should
understand that.

Therefore, the government cannot force religious
organizations to provide any service that is regarded as immoral by that
organization. The position of the Catholic Church does not deny women any
service that they may desire, it merely refuses to provide those services or pay
for them indirectly through an insurance policy, which is both proper and
legal.

The Obama administration and the pro-contraceptive,
pro-sterilization, pro-abortion faction will simply have to find another way to
foster promiscuity without the assistance of the nation’s religious
institutions.

15 comments:

CK
said...

i love the political posturing around these "wedge" issues... I still think the majority of Americans dont really care about this and see the Church's opinion as just another antiquated aspect of their ever decaying social institution.

And I love the "back in my day" reflection about the social stigma associated with out-of-wedlock pregnancy... as if it didnt occur. people have always slept around,committed adultery, abused drugs and alcohol, had children out of wedlock, backroom abortions, etc.

I'm not drinking the "nostalgia flavored koolaid" and buying the argument that America used to be much more "Holy" with everyone minding their P's & Q's ... seems like an unrealistic over-exaggeration to me

The GOP continues to pull themselves further away from the "typical American" and their viewpoints and "Birth Control-Gate" is no exception...

Its only helping the Democrats in the long run as just the standard "cookie-cutter" GOP stance on political issues continue to alienate the majority of Americans...

What the public thinks about the issue is irrelevant. The Church rightly sees an attack against its constitutionally protected independence from government control over its tenets.

You must be less than 40-45 years old, or you would remember that things were far different "back then," and in many ways far better. Please reread that section of the column for clarification.

You may be right, but time will tell what people ultimately think about the different views on social issues.

It doesn't take a genius to see that there is a parallel between the loosening of societal strictures over the last 50 years and growth of social problems, like abortion, out-of-wedlock births, divorce, etc.

definitely under 40... but in talking to some older folks, they sometimes echo my sentiments... people tended to not spread their business and discuss such things as we do today...and liked to paint the picture of a strong loving family (like the Donna Reed show or Leave it to Beaver)...

and as for the birth control topic, ... what other medications do they not agree with and how far does such a stance go? Couldnt some religious groups just tell everyone to pray for their healing as they are not going to foot the bill for something that goes against God's will ...

I'm not suggesting that things were perfect back then -- the 50s & 60s -- but casual/recreational sex was far less prevalent, and as a result there were far fewer unwed mothers, single-parent families, abortions and STDs. That's simply the truth. And I believe the farther back you go, the fewer of those things there were.

I'm not Catholic, but I think they believe that sex is primarily for procreation, and therefore, preventing pregnancy was accomplished by abstaining from having sex; no need for contraception; no need for sterilization; no need for abortion.

Thus, to encourage/provide those things to prevent pregnancy or undo the results of sexual activity is a serious wrong, since you shouldn't be indulging in sex unless you want to create a child.

That's their belief, and no one outside the church has anything to say about that.

We can disagree with the church, and Catholics can disobey the church, but we can't change what it believes. And the government cannot force the church to go against its on doctrines.

I don't believe the church has problems with other medical issues, but I'm certainly no authority on that subject.

With the beliefs you listed, no, you do not share the positions of most Republicans or conservatives, at least in the context you probably mean them, although the vast majority Republicans and conservatives are also among the 99%.